Menu

The Unbearable Rightness of Being Female

The following post quote has been making the rounds in professional circles. It’s from Sallie Krawcheck, CEO of Ellevest, an investment firm dedicated to helping women with financial investment (no jargon, no ‘playing’ stocks for sport, no mansplaining, you got this). She’s also the “chair” of Elevate Network, a global professional women’s network. I’m adding this here to make a later point, but it’s important to understand how normalized it’s become for women to create a sexually exclusionary organization for women who will simultaneously complain about men’s sexism for not accommodating their (presumably successful) business culture to the interests of women. More on that later.

I thought I’d riff on this click-bait for, I assume, professional women because I expect we’ll see more of this prefabricated outrage in the coming years as a response to what will undoubtedly be the suffering of the Trump era in America. I’ll be the first to admit I was surprised by Trump’s win, but the denial of the First Female President® into the White House will be the cause du jour for every jilted woman who believes she’s a “professional”. Even if Clinton had won the mainstream would’ve been inundated with how ‘we still have a long way to go’ stories, however, with Trump in the Presidency the same tired narrative of systemic male sexism will get reinvigorated in the coming years.

From, A Letter to young women, in the age of Trump:

When I was your age, I thought it was over. My mother was a feminist, so I wanted to call myself anything but a feminist. And anyway, I seemed pretty welcome at work. Even though it was Wall Street, my analyst class was about a third women. We weren’t just on our way — we’d arrived.

But then…there were the inappropriate pictures left on my desk. The guy miming a sex act when my back was turned. I wasn’t given the great assignments; the more senior woman I worked with was likewise dismissed as “lightweight” (and, lest you think that might have been true, that woman was Safra Catz, now the co-President of Oracle). Then the women started to fall away in their 30s…more in their 40s. But the worst of it, I thought was over.

And now Trump has made it clear to everyone that the battle for us women is not over.

In femopshere there will always be an ‘us’. As I’ve outline in many prior essays, the Sisterhood will always take precedence above religion, politics, personal conviction and even family affiliations for women. Largely this is due to women’s evolved propensity for collectivism among their own sex. In our hunter gatherer beginnings women had an interdependent need for collective support for keeping tribal cohesion as well as child rearing.

This intrasexual collective support has carried over into what’s become the Sisterhood today. If you look at the interactions of young girls and their social group interdependence you begin to see that nascent tribal collectivism naturally come through. In terms of larger societal scope this collectivity becomes about acknowledging a shared experience of an imagined oppression by men. Between all women there is a gestalt understanding of “the plight of women” and a presumption of an endemic sexism no matter how culturally or socioeconomically dissimilar those women are.

As I mentioned, Trump is now a universal icon of that presumption of sexism and oppression. Granted, it could’ve been any man who displaced a woman in the history books, but the fall back presumption is that whoever ‘he’ is, he becomes emblematic of a ready narrative of sexism irrespective of merit. We presume sexism, we presume a guy would mime a sex act behind a woman’s back and leave ‘inappropriate’ pictures on a woman’s desk despite decades of workplace harassment legislation. We believe it because it sounds right; it sounds like something a typical sexist guy would do.

I can’t stop thinking about this and what we can / should do:

Remember that gender bias in the workplace is not a thing of the past. I’m sorry if I didn’t act when I should have. I thought we had left sexism behind us by the time I was in more senior roles. After all, we had complaint hotlines and diversity plans and requirements for diverse slates of candidates for every job. But now I’m remembering one of the members of the senior leadership team who would kiss younger women on the cheek at the beginning of meetings. Creepy, right? I now wonder what was being said when I wasn’t in that room.

What’s creepy is that in spite of years in a professional field that’s been the domain of men she’s just now remembering this fact. Would it have been less creepy if he’d kissed only his age-appropriate women on his leadership team? Professional women’s default presumption is that it is always sexism that is holding them back from breaking through a mythologized ‘glass ceiling’, but as is women’s solipsism, their first thought is that their problems are caused by externalities. Never is there an insight that they may simply lack the skills or that they don’t perform at their peak in a job they were told should be rewarding to them.

Gender biases will never be a thing of the past because to suggest they ever might be so is to presume a default state of egalitarian equality between the sexes. The gender biases in the workplace are most evident in the peer selection and peer evaluations of women – not some secret group of guys getting together in a private office room to expressly talk about a their co-workers’ tits.

“In a lawsuit-happy culture, where claims can be made on a ‘he said/she said’ basis, men are now trying to ensure their actions are always covered by a third party witness”

“The terror of being accused of sexual harassment is now so common it has its own term, ‘backlash stress”

There’s a reason HR departments are largely staffed by women, because they want to be positioned in a way that they can execute policy. HR departments no longer exist to serve the company with regards to employees, rather they exist in order to protect that company from lawsuits and enforce feminine-primary conditions in the workplace.

Ask tough questions, and call the guys out when necessary. I recently asked my best guy friend: “Do guys really talk like Donald Trump and Billy Bush behind closed doors?” His response: “No, but…” And the “but” was that the conversations are more along the lines of: “Boy, she has great legs,” or “she’s a looker” or “Whew. Wouldn’t touch her with a ten-foot pole.” When I asked him how he responded to this, he said he didn’t say anything; after all, he has to work with these folks.

But so do we. And breaking us down to our body parts or our appearance dehumanizes us in some way. Maybe it’s only in some small way. But it’s clear that for some years, we (and by we, I mean I) were likely too complacent about the inevitability of gender progress in the workplace and relaxed perhaps just a bit too much.

It’s funny and irreverent when all the girls in the office get together for drinks or a male revue strip show after work, but it’s dehumanizing when men do the same. I’ve known very few men who would ever comment on a woman’s anatomy in a workplace environment. I have known men who would scold other men for staring a little too long at a female co-worker. I have known women to actively flirt with guys and wear inappropriate outfits to get attention from them. I’ve known women who’ve called me and other men I’ve worked with their “work husbands”.

I’ve worked in the liquor and casino promotion businesses for two decades now. I see some pretty wild behavior on the part of women who are not unlike the poor victimized dears Krawcheck describes going to work on Monday mornings.

The modern workplace culture has conditioned men for fear of women thanks largely to strict codes of conduct, but also because these men have been raised from birth to be dutiful Betas and White Knights who look for every opportunity to correct a ‘typical man’ for his sexist and rude behaviors. They look for these backroom boys clubs where women are rated on their looks so as to expose their heinous misogyny and institutionalized sexism, but they are disappointed when they don’t actually find it. So instead they contribute to an atmosphere of fear in some lame form of Beta Game they hope will be recognized and rewarded for by workplace women.

If you’re in a bad work situation, it’s ok to quit. So many women think that it’s a “failure” if you quit your job; and you know how hard we females take failure. But sometimes it’s not us: it’s them.

I recently left the board of a non-profit that I LOVE. I had been on it for years (and years). At nearly every meeting I asked how much we were spending on our investment managers, in comparison to the return we were getting. Meeting after meeting I was told that the answer was complex, it was hard to calculate, it would take a lot of work – and why did it matter anyway? It was really the net returns that matter, regardless of how much we paid for them. And then, last spring, before I could bring up the topic, one of the men did; and all the other guys eagerly agreed with him, that we need to keep an eye on fees because those are really all we can control.

I quit the next week.

Life is too short, and I can have a lot more impact with the week-a-year I get back instead of being ignored in meetings.

I know not everyone is in the position to quit; I wasn’t earlier in my career. So the onus is also on those of us who are more senior to be more supportive of women who leave these situations. I am hopeful that an outcome of this election will be greater understanding of this.

If it had been a woman who’d made the same suggestion would we be hearing about this? Shit like this happens all the time in the workplace. One reason The 48 Laws of Power resonated with men so well is because it was relatable to exactly this kind of situation. Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit for it yourself. Sallie sees this as sexism because it happened to be a guy who pulled it on her, but would she have quit the non-profit had it been a woman who outplayed her?

This is the reality of even the most seemingly benign of companies. They are defined by the interplay of power dynamics, but when women are bested in it the sexism narrative is ready on standby to comfort and explain their failure. So it becomes OK to quit, because the environment is always sexist. The business environment is one defined by competition and this grates on women’s expectation of it to be cooperative and collective. Women like Sallie expect recognition for merit, but wish for things to be easier rather than developing the skills to play the game better.

Get yourself a senior, successful – preferably female – mentor, who can help you navigate the politics of your company. This includes the gender politics. Can’t find one on your own? Speak to HR about helping you find one; this is their job, after all.

Your company doesn’t have a senior, successful female? Get the hell out of there.

Really the only sexism I’m seeing in this piece has been one coming from and endorsed by Krawcheck. She bemoans a lack of gender equity and then suggests a female mentor would be preferable to a male one. Her sexism is blatant here – the only definition of a solid reputable company is one that ensures it has a senior, successful female in it. Since most HR departments are staffed primarily with women it’s their job to help you find a senior, successful and female mentor? I’m not a business insider, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t their job.

I made this point in Male Space, but what happens when women insert themselves into a traditionally male dominated domain is that the enterprise becomes about accommodating the female influences rather than the enterprise itself. This entire article is an indictment of this. Again, the solution to a woman’s problem of not being successful is sought externally.

Do your best to make sure that your success is quantified. Be it a sales goal, a client satisfaction rating, an output metric, a quality target. Numbers count here because they’re black-and-white, cut-and-dried. Were you successful or not? I recommend this even if you work in a “normal” company, because implicit gender biases and expectations still exist for all of us.

Solid enough advice, but it’s couched in the context of an expectation of gender biases (at least the type of bias Sallie finds unacceptable). There’re implicit gender biases, but the ones we see dominate even ‘normal’ companies are ones that favor a feminized workforce.

Think about starting your own thing. This is what’s exciting; we have the ability to start our own businesses today, in a way we didn’t in the past. Why not take our marbles to our own playgrounds and build great businesses and cultures? Our mothers couldn’t do this because the cost was so high – but the costs of everything-about-starting-a-business, including technology, people (i.e., freelancers), real estate (co-working spaces) and support services are coming down. And then no one can relegate you to the less-interesting jobs.

Women are taught that they deserve the luxury of interesting jobs. In fact this is the sole reason for even wanting to enter the workforce most times – a rewarding career that’s fulfilling, but as I wrote in She’s Unhaaapy… that fulfillment is always elusive. Therefore it must be that uncooperative men are holding women back from this happiness.

I’m not sure opening another gourmet cupcake eatery counts as contributing to the status of women in business, but I would say that women ought to be encouraged to start up their own businesses rather than rely on the proven successes of established ones to prove their business acumen. Carly Fiorina and Sheryl Sandberg are not innovators in any sense. Neither started a company from scratch, but they are lauded as powerful businesswomen because they supposedly had the moxie to compete with the big boys and their sexist enterprises – not actually as a result of their companies wanting to present a feminine-correct public image.

I would love to see women’s organic business successes despite themselves, but my guess is that every failure or setback would have some tinge of external sexism attached to them. The truth is there are very few women who actually create something of worth because the easier path to success is to create a social convention that shames men for not including women in their own successes. It will always be easier for women to appropriate the success of men rather than create anything for themselves.

I am going to go out of my way to support other women. It’s clear now: we can’t do this alone. Another woman who is promoted or celebrated or funded clears the way for another. I am actively looking to buy from women-owned businesses, which is much easier these days — Glossier, Outdoor Voices, and Project September are just a few of a new wave of startups led by women — and avoid companies that remain all-men. I’m just so over supporting them.

And here we have yet more fem-centric sexism in a piece decrying male sexism. Weren’t we just reading about how surprised Sallie was about gender bias not being a thing of the past in the workplace? Because Trump won the election she calls for a boycott from buying anything from male owned companies?

One thing I’ve always found ironic about women’s call for collective, gender-exclusionary support for other women is that women are often guilty of even worse infighting than men are in the workplace. Lets face it, women hate other women to a degree that most men are unaware of. Their capacity for sub-communication and psychological warfare among themselves makes intra-sexual competition more brutal than having to deal with any so-called sexist male co-worker. From women’s collectivist perspective one would think that women’s intra-sexual support of other women would make them all outstanding successes in business, but we find the opposite is true. Women have a very hard time making an all-female enterprise a success. Naturally this is blamed, again, on men’s sexists brinksmanship and outmaneuvering them, but by and large it’s internal conflict that destroys all-female run enterprises.

Invest. Having spent my career on Wall Street and now being the founder of Ellevest, a digital investment platform for women, I know I’m a broken record on this topic. But men invest to a greater extent than women do, and it costs us. Indeed, I believe investing is the best career advice women aren’t getting. Think about it – are you more able to tell your boss to take this job and shove it if you have more money or less money?

That’s what I thought. At the end of the day, money is the real key to gender equality.

Of course we get the sales pitch at the end. Women don’t invest because it’s not sexy. It requires a degree of commitment and a depth of insight that goes well beyond what an average woman has any interest in. I do find it entertaining that Sallie finally gets to the real reason for a gender inequality she claims she wants to see abolished. Money is most definitely a key to establishing social dominance and that creates a fundamentally unequal condition between men and women.

Businesses, successful ones, are founded on competition, not cooperation. This is the fundamental conflict we are experiencing in today’s corporate culture; women’s collectivism promotes what they believe should be a successful enterprise based on egalitarian cooperation while men largely see the enterprise as competition. Sometimes this is a win-at-any-cost type of competition, other times it may be more subtle, but the crux is that women’s propensity to want for a more collectivist approach to a successful enterprise is at odds with men’s competitive approach. Success in business is fundamentally unegalitarian, there are winners and losers, not co-equal participation trophy winners. But as women continue to insert themselves into the unegalitarian male spaces of enterprise we will see this push for cooperative hopes for business success fundamentally alter the purpose of these businesses as we attempt more and more to accommodate them.

Post navigation

1,077 comments

I work primarily with females in the workplace, and RP has been a blessing in understanding the female social matrix. I don’t get sucked in the female in-fighting as it often does not have anything to do with profits or company goals. Identifying comfort and sh*t tests from female coworkers helps me to thrive in this environment. It’s amazing how much comfort testing goes on during a stressful project. Using RP knowledge and just being an stoic oak and giving comfort to a lessor degree than a husband would has made me a part of this “team”.

I am often asked about how so and so feels. Quite frankly I know they are mad or upset and simply am not fazed by it all, but the ladies have to know more. Other times I get to hear someones feelz about another woman, since I don’t gossip about the ladies, so they feel safe around me. Being outside the female matrix has it’s advantages.

When men go To Work,that’s exactly what we do. We don’t go there with the deliberate goal of bedding every broad in the joint. We might end up doing so by circumstance,but seldom by design.

To females,however,every moment of every day is a mating opportunity. The Shit Test instinct so frequently seen in the club on Friday night doesn’t have an off switch on Monday morning. Business meetings no longer exist to formulate strategy ;they’re a shit test venue where women get betas to jump through hoops.

Funny. Years ago I learned game and hit the gym to help myself on the weekend . Little did I realize my muscles and my game would be used more often 9-5 ,Monday through Friday in my mixed gender office.

She identifies with her phenotype, but her career and diatribe is of exactly logically mansplaining the plight (collectively) of women in the business work space. I imagine she would have been happier to have transitioned to be a man at the start of her career.

But then again, that’s feminist equalism for you. The flight of “business” women towards masculinizing themselves.

Two points to add to this. In my company when girls talk about the “hot new guy” in the office ….everyone laughs and moves on. For any guy to say “who’s the hot new intern?” Earns one an “ew” at the least and a potential reprimand.

That’s why game is so important. Calibrating the response or the comment so it’s framed as “oh that rascal…”

Thats why the neg is so powerful a game tool to spark attraction, it defies expectations of being that supplicating nice guy.

Holding your ground with women means you will lose some prospects. But it’s critical to differentiating yourself.

The response to an LBJF is always “I see you as a woman not a friend” and walk away…several times ice had women chase me after I’ve said that.

Feminism has made game a requirement for breaking through that estrogen ceiling.

@SJF
> And just like Sheryl Sandberg, her ring finger is longer than her index finger. How’d that happen?

The ratio of index finger/ring length is determined by testosterone levels.

Women with index fingers shorter than their ring finger have higher-than-average levels of testosterone for a woman.

FWIW, these women can be beasts in bed, they have male-like sexual arousal paterns. Men also find them more aggressive and challenging to get along with. Kind of like being married to a female guy. Many similarities to male homosexual relationships, except your gay partner has a vagina. Suitable for a guy with the right kinds of proclivities.

Women can’t build. They take over what men have already made a success. ask women to start a company with you and not one will want to patiently grow the enterprise with you. Years later when its a giant the same women will petition the powers-that-be to force you to make spaces for women because Gender Qouta! long ago nerdy boys who couldn’t get laid worked on video games and created something to occupy other lonely guys. And no woman gave a second thought to that world of games. Today because games have become mainstream and are a billion dollar business what are women saying: games need gender equality. Women need to be accommodated in that industry!!!!! Next comics.nerdy boys lived in their make-believe world of awesomeness and comic fans were belittled as losers all throughout the 80s. Fast forward a generation later and comic book movies rake in billions NOW women want a piece of that pie! Ok no problem women,create your own characters then. No thanks too much work.we will just take some of yours… and change their gender! Bham, female Thor! Bham female Ironman! Sigh!
The only thing women can start is human life.and that is more important than all the businesses of the world combined and tripled.but since women have come to look down on that marvel as something that holds them back or whatever,they are left trying to swim with sharks in the business world.
Sometimes I wish women would just leave men alone and go start their own country somewhere,or that as men we could just create a new all-male country;one where prostitutes would be the only women allowed. I have never heard a prostitute blame men for anything.I will choose the love prostitutes have for men(though I know its pretended)over the hate men face from women today. And hookers are the most honest women you will ever find.

Testosterone is the most powerful determinant of male-female brain differences. Higher-testosterone women really do think and act more like men, and they particularly do better in business situations that are meritocracies.

So Sallie Krawcheck is really talking from her perspective on life, as a woman on the far side of the bell curve, and doesn’t understand the realities of the majority of typically feminine women.

@godfreyknows: “Women can’t build. They take over what men have already made a success.”

I was about 11 years old, scrawny and short (but grew to be 6 feet). We lived about a mile outside of town. The railroad ran past our place about two blocks away (canyon in northern Idaho). That spring, they came through and replaced the old railroad ties with new ones. They carted the old ones away, but not all. They missed a few, along with a few railroad spikes.

I dug four holes in a grove of cottonwood trees, dragged four railroad ties over, put one end in each hole and lifted them upright. Scrawny, but scrappy – as I don’t remember having any help doing this. Filled in the holes so that the railroad ties were held upright. Then dragged spare lumber from around the area and built myself the best fort ever around those four upright railroad ties. Walls, roof, floor, door, window. Took the railroad spikes and pounded them into the trunk of a cottonwood tree – all the way up to where the branches started. Coolest playground ever. Hang out in the fort. Go climb the cottonwood tree and look for pirates from my high perch.

One day, not long after I finished my work, I found myself being thrown to the ground and sat on by the neighborhood girl I had observed watching me as I built my fort. She was about fifteen, and much bigger than I (not fat, just bigger). I could not get out from under her. She informed me that she was appropriating my fort for herself and the three other (younger) girls that were with her.

Even at that young age, maybe because I had younger sisters, I remember thinking how weird it all was because “girls don’t like forts”. I had to leave, because I was not strong enough to overpower her. But the thought stayed with me – “girls don’t like forts”. So I stayed away, but kept an eye on things. Sure enough, after a week or so, I no longer saw her or her friends around my fort. I went back and re-occuppied what I had created, and never had words with her again about what had transpired. Even though she was part of the neighborhood gang that used to play kickball together until long after dark. We were never enemies. But we were never friends either. Even though we sometimes played together on the same kickball team.

I learned a number of things about men and women from that weird encounter. And I don’t think it ever occurred to me to tell my parents about it either.

Women will always bitch and complain (and men will be the scapegoat). If you ever worked with women or worked with a group of women you know how devious they can be in a work environment. It’s true, they hate each other and there are plenty of subtle games being played between women. That’s why if you remove a man from the group, then you’ll see women tearing each other apart – not raising each other up like they want you to believe. They only come together, collectively, because they can blame all of their failures on men as a whole (versus taking it on the chin that maybe they failed).

I find it funny in these types of articles by “professional women” that they try to make a point about sexism being bad…and then their whole article is nothing but sexism (against men, of course). Nothing wrong with that one way street of sexism…as usual.

It’s all about feelings with women in the end. They want everyone else to adapt to their “feelings” first versus the different goals set out by men…to build and make something great.

This “feminist fund” would be a great thing to sell short, if it were possible to short sell an index fund (is there? I seriously want to know, this would be a great investment…I’ve seldom seen such a sure thing, this is a guaranteed failure in progress). We are told we can “invest directly in Pax World Management”. Okay, let’s see what this beauty looks like….keeping in mind it must be bad. Very, very bad, or the performance would be highlighted on the front page. They link to the prospectus:

Looking at the prospectus, on page 39 you can see the fund has underperformed reliably since its inception, but that’s just compared to “similar funds”. And the prospectus is typically more glossy than reality.

But then again, that’s feminist equalism for you. The flight of “business” women towards masculinizing themselves.

Yes.

In my experience working with dozens of highly educated (advanced degrees, lawyers, execs) women over the past 25-30 years, I can confirm that the ones which get the farthest in the corporate world are the masculine ones. By masculine I mean mindset — not looks. A woman can be feminine looking (and actually that works better in corporate America than looking androgynous), but her mind/attitude/frame is very masculine. Often they are conflicted about their sex. They almost all subscribe to the “all women are oppressed” worldview, and therefore favor team woman, but at the same time many of them relate better to men because their own internal frame isn’t feminine. They especially have a hard time relating to the more feminine women in the workplace, who are often in subordinate positions like secretaries — these are often feminine mindset women who like helping, assisting and so on — and they don’t like masculine/dominant female bosses, as is well known.

Now, I have also seen said masculine/dominant female professionals *get better* at dealing with feminine mindset subordinates … but they had to *learn* how to do so. It was like they had to learn workplace game to deal with the feminine women there they were supervising, because their innate frame and mindset wasn’t feminine. I’ve also seen many other masc/dom female professionals refuse to do this, or be unable to do this, and fail in the workplace because their female subordinates deep six them. So, in my experience at least, the masc/dom female execs also need to learn some game in order to succeed at work, because their mindset and frame and point of origin are essentially far removed from anything feminine and what their female subordinates are experiencing. Of course that doesn’t stop them from playing for team woman, but the masc/dom ones do have a harder time relating to *female* subordinates in the office, and only the ones who can learn how to relate to men (easyish for this group) and feminine women (needs to be learned for this group) really succeed over the long term as leaders in the workplace.

I fully expect the dogs to start barking around the perimeter,as soon as they can drag their lazy buts out of bed and figure out what to wear.

This post explains what i see and hear every day.

While the fems seem to excel at coloring between the lines,their ability to compromise and improvise when things don’t go according to the plan is a weak area.While for men accepting and accommodating women in the work place is just another hurdle to overcome.

My question is how much of the present dysfunction of the economy is actually due to this accommodating of women in the work place? At some point we have to keep a balance of productive jobs being the majority,or the tax for covering the expenses of the non productive will be too heavy to bear.I suspect we have crossed that line of too much dead weight many years ago,causing our present system of robbing peter to pay paul,it looks as if old pete is broke.

What isn’t fair is women get half the money and have all the pussy.LOL

There are almost too many ‘stand-alone-one-liners of truth’ to memorize for future use.

Women like this, much to my surprise, are slowly converting me from a life long pedastalizer and lover of women; into the misogynist they’ve always claimed I was. I never would have believed it, but they really are relentless about it all. No matter that modern western women are the most pampered and advantaged females that have ever lived on earth, they will not give up the refrain.

For those that have asked, the statue resides in Copenhagen harbor right beside the little mermaid. Or at least it used to. The plaque on shore that accompanies it reads as follows:

“I’m sitting on the back of a man.
He is sinking under the burden.
I would do anything to help him.
Except stepping down from his back.”

This “feminist fund” would be a great thing to sell short, if it were possible to short sell an index fund (is there?

Yes, but if you’re talking something that isn’t an ETF (and I think the ones mentioned are not ETFs), you’d need to do it synthetically by private contracts (like what you see in The Big Short), which is expensive in terms of the capital you have to have in order for people to agree to the contract with you. There may be some feminist-oriented ETFs that you could short in the conventional way through your broker provided you meet margin.

These latest essays are beginning to place quantity over quality. Rollo dismissed Luke’s (RSD) comment that TRM was nothing other than ‘truthful anger’. Though unfortunately that’s what it’s becoming with each essay.
The lose of objectivity comes into play when Rollo berates Sallie for not knowing how to play the game and stating women can’t accept failure.
But when Sallie’s perfectly sensible contribution is ignored repeatedly by her peers and then she has to watch as someone (who isn’t being ignored) get credit for her contribution. She’s left with no option but to leave. Yet Rollo wants us to believe she was outplayed. No Rollo she was ostracised and made to feel worthless.
Rollo, you can sell a couple million books to knuckledraggers, filled with red pill anger. But eventually you’ll lose all claims to being a rational male.

We presume sexism, we presume a guy would mime a sex act behind a woman’s back and leave ‘inappropriate’ pictures on a woman’s desk despite decades of workplace harassment legislation.

Actually, I presume that she made the whole thing up. I don’t believe any of those things happened to her, or if something did happen that she has made a mountain out of a molehill. Perception is a woman’s only reality. These days holding the door open for a women can be tantamount to sexual assault depending on her mood that day and if she wants to bang you or not.

But when Sallie’s perfectly sensible contribution is ignored repeatedly by her peers and then she has to watch as someone (who isn’t being ignored) get credit for her contribution. She’s left with no option but to leave.

While reading this post and the many great OP topic comments,it occurs that rather than a fat man that could neither hunt,farm or fish,it was women that first developed and instituted fiat currency.Originally as a fair means of exchange of surplus product of coarse.

The next thing we’re going to see is a push for more “inclusive National Holidays “. They took away Columbus Day and replaced it MLK day. They’ll likely try to eliminate Veteran’s Day or Memorial Day as they represent while males and war, not defense of country or freedom in the minds of militant feminists. Get ready for Elizabeth Cady Stanton Day.

@ollieoxenfree1, I get that you’re female but if you spent more time in a work environment you’d understand this shit happens all the time. And yes, I myself have been outplayed in exactly this manner. Did I leave? No, I learned how to play the game better and compete at a higher level. I understand the laws of power and how even if I feel uncomfortable employing them that doesn’t mean someone else will too.

As a creative professional I learned this early on. Even to this day I have guys claiming credit for the successes of my past work, that’s part of the business. So am I wiser enough now to protect my ideas? You bet your ass I am, but I wouldn’t have developed that if I’d “felt ostracised and made to feel worthless” and exited those situation.

A non profit not for profit.A member of a board of directors,a necessary evil,usually a volunteer position,although sometimes nominated,typically the chair”person”and the accountant hold the position of the most power.Definitely a game position by any measure,as everyone involved has an agenda.

“I had been on it for years (and years). At nearly every meeting I asked how much we were spending on our investment managers, in comparison to the return we were getting. Meeting after meeting I was told that the answer was complex, it was hard to calculate, it would take a lot of work – and why did it matter anyway? It was really the net returns that matter, regardless of how much we paid for them.”

Asking the question that cannot be answered without an audit by the accountant,presumably also a volunteer position,or a paid position,either way,an indirect suggestion to spend more time or money looking into this.Much more effective would be to forward a motion to audit the investment expenses.

“And then, last spring, before I could bring up the topic, one of the men did; and all the other guys eagerly agreed with him, that we need to( keep an eye on fees) because those are really all we can control”.

Keeping an eye on fees is an audit or accounting job,and suggesting this is different from asking a question that cannot be answered without first doing the work.

She quit the next week.Could she have been in it for all the wrong reasons for the whole time.
Did she love the charity or the ego investment of being attached to the charity more?
Either way,definitely a weak player in the game.

NovaseekerShe’s the kind who could get a LOT of thirsty wall street guys knocking down her door if she divorced, even at 51 (she is married).

Yeah, but think of the baggage in her head that comes along as part of the deal. Reading that text I can imagine what she sounds like, although without the verbal fry the younger feminists affect. I dunno. Duct tape?

“Again is it beta to protect your source of income, reputation, and assets or is it a logical decision based on the current situation?”

A logical decision based on the current situ.I can remember when my favorite towing company had to refuse rides to stranded women due to the threat of sexual harassment charges or pay almost double for business liability insurance.What would you do?

That’s what we need insurance against PC crimes,PCPPL the new pyramid scheme insurance plan.

@Rollo, your first year essays are essential reading. It represents some of the greatest literature on intersexual dynamics. But your last two essays are an affront to your earlier work.
On a niche forum I saw a poster cite and regurgitate your thesis on hypergamy in answer to poster who wanted to know why his girlfriend had dumped him.
Your work is being disseminated and internalised by a wider audience. Soon it will be the orthodoxy. You’ll be asked to appear on television to express your thoughts.
You’ll go and be ambushed by a feminist who won’t dare discuss your first year work, but insteaddredge up essays like this one.
Rollo, you can ignore me, call me a woman or even ban me and return to the circle jerk of the comment section, but I criticise your current offering because it isn’t of the standard you’ve set for this site, in your other work.
Most of it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
For instance you’re quick to dismiss feelings, but I would argue most wars are started based on some general feeling or other.
WW1 was started by a feeling of technological superiority on Germany’s part. WW2 began with a feeling of powerlessness among the Germany people.
Hell, Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency because he made people feel he was the right man for the job. He didn’t appeal to the public’s rationale.
A man will stay with a woman who no longer shows any affection for him, just because of what he once felt for her.

There’s a subtle, but important, reason SK is still successfully married and would be able to snag a guy relatively quickly if she became single again.

As mentioned above (shout out to @SJF) SK is one of those rare women with the male 1st/3rd digit length pattern (means she has high testosterone)

HT women have very high sex drives, and if they can hook up with the right kind of alpha to marry or LTR with, the kind of guy who can manage their aggressive nature, they provide what every married guy wants (but so few have) a high-sex, frequent sex, aggressive sex relationship.

Thats' vague. The original essay is a descriptive essay. It's not an objective scientific study. Define whose scrutiny it doesn't hold up to and why it doesn't hold up.

For instance you’re quick to dismiss feelings……

What it is your definition of dismiss? He actually is pointing out that feelings drove actions. Is it axiomatic that emotions drive women to act. If you disagree, then what are you doing her on this blog? Playing warrior?

” These latest essays are beginning to place quantity over quality. Rollo dismissed Luke’s (RSD) comment that TRM was nothing other than ‘truthful anger’. Though unfortunately that’s what it’s becoming with each essay.
The lose of objectivity comes into play when Rollo berates Sallie for not knowing how to play the game and stating women can’t accept failure.
But when Sallie’s perfectly sensible contribution is ignored repeatedly by her peers and then she has to watch as someone (who isn’t being ignored) get credit for her contribution. She’s left with no option but to leave. Yet Rollo wants us to believe she was outplayed. No Rollo she was ostracised and made to feel worthless.
Rollo, you can sell a couple million books to knuckledraggers, filled with red pill anger. But eventually you’ll lose all claims to being a rational male.”

I’m not a knuckledragger. Unless primed with Seagrams and illicit substances, but normally no.

Ollie, do you happen to know or associate with this woman on some level?

Maybe you should re-read the OP. In corporate America, there are generally accepted rules of engagement. At the higher levels it is a ( often ruthless ) competition. Having spent a few decades around this atmosphere, I can confirm Rollo’s conclusions.

So what’s your problem? I’ve never been in any situation in a work environment where a single shit was ever actually given about my ” feelings “, so I’ve always left them at home as they served no purpose at work. Are you saying that exceptions should be made in Sallie’s case?

Have you worked around a significant number of women in the workplace? Ever spend time observing their behaviors?

People in a competitive work environment sometimes get outplayed. It usually makes one better equipped. Would you rather competition be eliminated to spare…what exactly? Feelings? Realistically, wouldn’t that make a company or endeavor weaker?

I’m just trying to understand what it is that bothers you about the OP ( or the last 2 OP’s in general ). What would you rather see written about? Are you saying that there’s no ” truth ” in the OP’s, or do you perceive only ” anger “, and why do you think this is true?

Not been going out much cos of work, but a little bit – as I said, not posting FRs unless something interesting happens.

Sat night was interesting – was out with a couple of wings (the good looking social guy who pulls well because of the above two things and the other dude who is awkward socially).

Went to some slightly more upmarket bars with hotter girls than we normally go to (not true high-end venues, but more sort of mid-level hipsterish vs the usual student places we go to).

I didn’t open much but was laid back. One interesting two-set to talk about (6.5-7, and a 5.5-6)

My “bad” wing opened them and they opened easily but he clearly wasn’t hooking or getting attraction with the cuter one. My good looking wing went to join and help with the less-cute one who was obviously into him right from the start.

I joined a while later and hung around the outside of the conversation (actually I was leaning back against the wall next to the four of them just looking around with a smirk on my face).

I was introduced to both of them, then a bit later, the 6 came to my side to talk to me – IOI in itself. Took the opportunity for being “in set” and had a fairly long chat with her – got sexual early on and told my date stories – good response. Good EC but wasn’t really cutting distance enough to laser (also no kino as I was still leaning on the wall). She even told some sexual stories. Clearly good attraction.

Then we mixed things up as a group again and I was chatting briefly to the 7, who by this time was solidly into my wing – she engaged a bit with me but I didn’t push it. I was briefly talking to both the girls when my wings went off for a few minutes and the 6 was telling the 7 “You should really talk to this guy – he tells great stories” and the 7 was like “I think he’s [me] the most intelligent guy of the three”..and then the 7 immediately started trying to pump me for information about my good-looking wing in the guise of how I was good at reading people etc and whether he liked me and I joked and blew her off.

The 7 did this three separate times in a 25-30 minute period..basically every time she and I had isolation and the other three were talking or her friend was talking to one of my wings (it shifted around a lot – and I’m not describing this in the exact sequence it happened). Right at the start I’d made some comment to her about how I like people watching and reading people and she latched on to it and kept asking me to read my wing’s intentions and reactions.

The third – final – time was towards the end, when my good looking wing had gone back to politely chatting with the 6 (and my socially awkward wing was essentially socially invisible). The 7 literally launched into a kind of monologue (it was a conversation but she was mostly looking for me to confirm what she said), along the lines of: “Yeah, there he is..your friend is taking my friend’s number, he must like her [he actually didn’t want to bang either of them – and took the 6’s number out of politeness”]..what kind of guy is your friend? He doesn’t look like relationship material [he is a good looking, cool, social guy, but he is literally the most BP serial monogamist you will meet – he is Mr Relationship – and the last two girlfriends cheated on him]…so he’s the kind of guy who you have a one-night stand with..after all I’m not THAT pretty, I’m kind of averagely pretty [she’s right there] and some more stuff along those lines [this whole thing is in her words – I was interjecting and asking some questions to direct the conversation but she said all this].

I was just like WTF? listening to this monologue and encouraging her because it was entertaining. The whole evening was good because I wasn’t drinking at all – not even one beer to loosen up – and I just felt so much better – so much more alert and fresh and able to see all the smaller nuances of what the girls did..and I remember thinking this is so much FUN. I just like being out and meeting people and having conversations and flirting with girls, irrespective of whether it leads to a lay (as opposed to being out solo trying to pump my state and getting frustrated at lack of approaches etc). Like YaReally said, I need time in set and this was a great experience of that. All the fascinating dynamics of flicking between girls and how they competed for my wing.

Basically we were with the girls for about 30 minutes, sometimes as a group, sometimes as two couples, or 3/2..moving around the venue, to the smoking area and back etc. At one point I had quite a long comfort conversation with the 6 too ( her job was genuinely interesting and I asked about it). Then my good looking wing wanted to bail and the 6 was like “We were going to invite you guys to have one more drink with us..” and my wing and I looked at each other and were like “Eh..okay another 5-10 min” and we did that and we bailed (good looking wing got BOTH girls numbers – first the 6 and then 7..the socially awkward wing got the 6’s number, and the 6 gave all of us her business card with her mobile on it a while before that). Interesting dynamic – the only time (years ago) I closed BOTH girls in a two-set (6.5/7.5), the 6.5 laid claim to me essentially by taking the initiative and texting me before I could text her friend – 6.5 turned out to be the FWB I’ve ever had.

I did quite well on EC and body language generally. Not close enough to the 6 (or 7) to really laser them. And I didn’t kino at all which was a mistake (but I didn’t even really feel like closing the 6 and the 7 didn’t have enough attraction).

Was a really good night. Glad I got out there and had time in set and enjoyed myself.

Clearly both the girls were DTF for my wing (esp the 7 but probably also the 6). The 6 was clearly into me too, but not the 7, although I had much less solo time with the 7 – I could have got her attracted with a little more time (but then the 7 was calling me early on the “most intelligent guy” etc – but my read is that was just to try and pump me for info about my wing).

I was thinking about how to do some of the stuff YaReally talks about and take over a girl’s RAS when a better looking guy is around etc, but I didn’t want to mess with my wing’s Game and AMOG him (although he wouldn’t have cared really as it turned out – he didn’t want either of them) and I wasn’t even sure what to do. I guess just some kind of “taking Over” the group conversation and getting everyone focussed on me – maybe just a loud voice and some controversial statement to set off an emotional spike? Then a wild story of some kind, followed by wing leaving or me isolating my target girl from my wing (to prevent distractions)? Something like that?

In retrospect I was probably a bit too laid back with not closing the 6. She was better looking than some of the online girls I’ve slept with so I should have tried..maybe the afterparty gambit (I live a 7-8 min Uber ride – or 30 min walk – away) and we could all 5 of us gone to my place. I could have number closed her at will of course..just didn’t feel like it (although both my wings did).

The three of us had a chat afterward – we need to work out our Wing Rules as there’s a lot of confusion. They are good guys but if we go in without a PLAN and knowing what we’re shooting for (and without knowing which guy wants which girl), it ends up in this sort of muddle where no one knows what is happening. I explained the basic Mystery Wing Rules to them and next time we’ll try applying them.

PS – Oh, not even worth mentioning maybe, but I had an overnight trip a few days ago to another city and I pipelined an online date 44 year old MILF (does Crossfit – amazing body). Straight up lay and up to my hotel room in 75 minutes. No LMR. Pretty much on from the start – I grabbed her ass 30 secs after meeting her and she loved it, sexual topics from 5 mins in, kissing in 20, some teeny bits of comfort and some push/pull and one qualification about something I liked about her. Just the usual really (I was mildly put off that someone got in the elevator with us and I couldn’t do my usual “shove against the wall make out” I do at that stage but it didn’t matter. I could feel her getting turned on during drinks..)

Pretty good sexual chemistry. This was the 4th or 5th online lay just in November (and I’ve turned DOWN a couple more). So that’s good on the sexual side. I’m experimenting with being more boundary pushing in bed..not so much physically (although I always am in control)..but I’ve always enjoyed dirty talk and I am getting filthier and filthier especially with the last two MILFs…calling them my slut and my whore, sticking fingers up asses..the works, even with what sounds really nasty degrading stuff (I was free-associating and was pretty turned on myself, but at one point I was saying something along the lines of how she was just a hole I was using to get myself off or something and she was just getting wetter and wetter and moaning) . The results have been great – they LOVE it. As long as you ramp up slowly and calibrate to their reactions (this one actually told me she enjoyed hair pulling but I wasn’t quite sure how to do it – maybe try next time).

Oh and also when I kicked this MILF out and went for a walk round downtown and to get a burger, I had the HB8 early 20s brunette at the burger joint counter flirting with me. Of course she was being professionally friendly, but I was joking around a bit when ordering (locked EC, but not quite laser) and she laughed and really engaged..it’s subtle but I could swear there was something there. Then I left a slightly above average tip on the card machine and she thanked me *profusely*. Like much more than that tip justified. As Scray says, gotta deduct a couple of points from her reaction because she was a hired gun, but still..

The way this place works is you order at the counter and then there are waitresses/waiters who bring the food from the kitchen to your table upstairs and keep the tables clean etc, while the counter staff keep taking more orders. But 5 mins later the *counter girl* left the counter to bring me my drink upstairs and serve me with a big smile and EC. Again, it seems like a small thing, and maybe it was nothing but my instincts say that was confirmation I hadn’t misjudged the original IOI.

As HABD would say at least I am noticing this stuff in real-time now, even if I’m not entirely sure how I could have made a play for the HB8.

Keep in mind that you are discussing there Sallie’s alleged personal life success (or higher chance of success) due to high testosterone (ongoing marriage and children, or mobility to move on).

Her business success was because of her masculine qualities, not in spite of her feminine phenotype. Her monetary success was legendary. Her being fired from two firms hurt her psyche and it shows in the Original Post here. She’s whining about not breaking through the glass ceiling and being fired from those jobs. Her limitations in the aggressive business space was part and parcel of her (collectivist) FI mindset. I.e her equalist entitlement mindset that Rollo describes. And that confuses Ollieoxen-ogerfrei. Sallie was very risk averse, esp. after Smith Barney (higher Testosterone but not as high as males) and relied on collectivism (from men and women) to not fail in her career, which is the female prerogative. Yes, this was a limitation in the business space. Yes, it stands up to scrutiny. This risk aversion is also reflected in the mission statement of Ellevest–being risk averse for women.

Indeed, the statue is “Survival of the Fattest“, and apparently still does reside next to “The Little Mermaid”, which is “seen by an estimated 1 million tourists a year.” It’s supposed to represent the First World living off the Third World, but that’s not what I thought of when I first saw it, years ago, on another site – I think it was Angry Harry’s (I see he died last April; RIP), and the photo was of the statue in a building, like a garage, or maybe the studio it was cast in.

Sallie was very risk averse, esp. after Smith Barney (higher Testosterone but not as high as males) and relied on collectivism (from men and women) to not fail in her career, which is the female prerogative. Yes, this was a limitation in the business space. Yes, it stands up to scrutiny. This risk aversion is also reflected in the mission statement of Ellevest–being risk averse for women.

Yes. I worked on the Street for years and it is a place of rational, controlled risk. That’s the whole game. Risk aversion is crap, it isn’t what the WS casino is about. It’s about managing downside to limit it and letting the up run.

Anyway, in terms of the specifics here, she seems to have run into the general tendency to not pay too much attention to fees when returns are high, but then to scrutinize them when returns are low. EVERYONE ON THE STREET DOES THIS. So what she did was mistime her objections to the fees … had she timed them better, she would have gotten credit, but instead she tipped the flag during the time when noone cared about fees because ROI was high, and then when ROI fell, she was exposed to someone better positioned politically to sweep in, make the same suggestion, and win.

Sucks, but with homo sapiens, timing is everything, man.

I’d also say that I bet she’s great in bed, and has used that to advance her career more than once (not necessarily actually in activity, but in using her looks to suggest activity), so there’s that. Really there are a handful of women who look like she does at 51, and they all care very very very very much about how they look because it benefits them. Just saying, based on my experience.

I recall reading somewhere once that among the Pueblo Indian cultures of the American Southwest (some 19 villages from Taos to Hopi, their cultures nearly identical though they speak several unrelated languages), the craft of weaving (and I presume other occupations) was strictly confined to one sex. The interesting part was that in some Pueblos, only the women wove (and men were prohibited from doing so), while in others only the men wove (and women were prohibited).

The “Battle of the Sexes” is not just some kind of joke: it actually is a war, and the only way to mitigate it is for each sex to have es own territory, inviolate by the other. The women of our culture have “won” the war by somehow convincing the men that there isn’t one.

How do porcupines mate? Very carefully. The men of the West have a lot to learn; they’re running circles around us, and laughing all the while.

And by the way, re: “Do guys really talk like Donald Trump and Billy Bush behind closed doors?” Any man who’s been around for a while knows that women actually talk dirtier among themselves than men do. They sure have us fooled!

The “Battle of the Sexes” is not just some kind of joke: it actually is a war, and the only way to mitigate it is for each sex to have es own territory, inviolate by the other. The women of our culture have “won” the war by somehow convincing the men that there isn’t one.

How do porcupines mate? Very carefully. The men of the West have a lot to learn; they’re running circles around us, and laughing all the while.

You are selling mastery and skill at engaging in inter-sexual pursuits short. Masculine nature is to engage in war to get release from constraint afterwards. I.e. to get off.

In regards to your comments, Illimitable Man said it more concisely once, in order to educate men on the nature of women, as well as the nature of themselves in relation to women.

Illimitable Man MAXIM #6: “There is an immutable animosity between the sexes that serves as the conduit for all distrust. This animosity flows from the inability of the sexes to reconcile their fundamentally opposed sexual strategies. For a man’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the woman’s must suffer. For a woman’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the man’s must suffer. Each sex is determined not to suffer, and so both inflict suffering on the other in a perverse determination not to suffer themselves; this is the battle of the sexes, this is reproductive war.”

IM MAXIM #7: “The sexes desire to trust one another, but they wish to actualize their sexual imperatives far more. As such, trust is predicated on the degree of one’s control far more than it is any sense of blind loyalty.”

IM MAXIM #12: “Cultures have always had a preferred sex. In some eras, men are celebrated; in others, it is women. There is no equality in prosperous cultures, only a cooperation where one sex recognizes the superiority of the other. To realize which culture you live in, ask yourself who it is more acceptable to criticize. The sex it is least acceptable to criticize is that culture’s preferred sex.”

I’m surprised no one thought to dig up the photo of Sallie that ran on the GirlBoss site.

She speaks of “inappropriate” pictures left on her desk, but in my estimation, this is an inappropriate photo for a CEO. Male CEOs don’t pose in their boxer shorts; women shouldn’t do the female equivalent.

Hey, Ton if I could translate that comment I assume you suggest some of us are reading into the behavior of the woman in the OP. Yes we are. She is a public figure and has a record of having said a lot (on record via google search), just like Sheryl Sandberg. What Sallie has said in the past translates into her motivations and shares motivations with women in general.

This from the Essay Please Break Up With Me (an re-iterated many times over in other essays):

Rollo:

“…women’s behaviors will generally inform a guy as to what a woman’s real intent is. This is a basic behavioral psychology principle; behavior is the only true measure of motivation and intent. Thus, all the verbalizing of intent, verbal rationalization of purpose and ‘open communication’ simply becomes a part of the behavior which Red Pill behaviorists then parse as true intent.”

The OP and it’s further dissection via comments is an attempt to dissect and learn female language. A man’s purpose in doing this would be to better understand and speak that language in order to facilitate his strategy inter-personally rather than in the business boardroom. It is just watching-what-she-does and inferring her motivation. In order to infer how the feminine typically would react to a situation like hers. Sallie is an archetype.

It’s odd, but just as I was typing this, an obviously first comment from a female dropped this:

The gist being that women, including the above comments by OllieOxen, cry foul when motivations are attributed to them by watching their behaviors. How dare men call them out for that. Any woman reading the OP and the comments would be understandably pissed that guys are discussing them via a behavioral psychology approach. They would cry foul because “women tend to opt for a more cognitive, emotive psychological perspective”.

Ton, a friend called me at 7:30 Thanksgiving morning to tell me that he had gotten a buck and wanted help transporting it. 7 points and about 260 lbs…a big boy…so Mrs. Gamer was annoyed that a little blood had dripped out of my truck onto our garage floor, lol…we had to keep it from the varmints and cold until the game processing plant opened Friday…my friend promised me some venison for helping him out, of course

…so Mrs. Gamer was annoyed that a little blood had dripped out of my truck onto our garage floor, lol

Another one of the myriad of soft dread forms (as well as DHV hunter pinging of her hindbrain). Passive hunting harvest blood on the garage floor. You want to kick that up a notch? Hang the deer in the garage for a week at 40 degrees and then process (butcher) the deer in your garage.

My point is why give a fuck about the mental on goings of some bitch you ain’t fucking on the regular?

Who gives a fuck about women crying foul? Why give a shit about how or why they get upset when you correct their behavior? They’re women, childern who’ve reached the age of concent. Do you over think the temper tantrum of toddlers?

Starting to think the man o sphere should rename itself to the obsessed with bitches sphere.

LOL I haven’t hunted yet this year. Fishing has been good. Took the Ton Spawn and the Hell Hounds out to this barrier island. Kind of place with no houses, no stores etc. Can’t say he enjoyed the fishing but the boy loved it when I did dumb shit in the truck

Going back next month. Ton2.0 should make that trip.

Been saddle tramping pretty hardcore too. Picked up some hippie artist chick on Hetterass who had only been fucking chicks for the last 8 years. A bike, 2 Mexican blankets, a poncho, a toothbrush and some cash and picked up 2 local chicks in 3 days. It’s been an awesome fucking winter

I tried to read all the comment but I just cannot. Hi y’all, its Scribb lakeside. Been working on “staying within myself” as Roger The Rocket Clemens used to say. Keeping life in the day. Trudging, making progress. Taking an inch every where I can, and making steady progress.

Reading this, I’m struck by one absurd lament more than the rest. Her observation about women not investing nearly as much as men do, and somehow just throwing her hands up about it. What does this say about women? Combine that with with the fact that consumerism and consumer debt does not rum amok until the “liberation” of women in the ’60s. As women become economically more empowered, the amount of plastic garbage discount stores sold soared. Women proudly proclaim they control 85% of household spending, okay sweetheart, then look at what you’ve wrought.

Consider that the reason so many consumer items are so cheap today is due to the massive offshoring of American work and production. From the time we cheerlead China into the WTO in 2000 until just the end of 2004, we lost over 4 million manufacturing jobs. This was after NAFTA produced none of the outcomes promised for American exporters.

Just think about the lowly iron. I could buy a cheap iron in 1972 for 11 dollars. I can buy a good one in Target for 14 dollars today. Clothes. Low end furniture. Electronics. Walmart distributes it, and it’s not just China, it’s just that we have never ever opened to a vast labor and production market like China’s in history. No nation ever has. We were idiotic. And those of you who are extreme free traders, go read Autor’s and other work coming out now which is looking just at what happened after NAFTA and China’s entry into the WTO. It’s nothing short of terrifying.

But without these cheap goods, our standard of living would look horrible. We traded long term productive growth off for cheap consumer goods now, and in the process scraped out a huge chunk of our capital/industrial base. We lost 58,000 factories in 15 years. Factories are hubs of innovation as they have ecosystems which support them comprised of many suppliers, who themselves are competing and improving. Engineers work away in these many supporting firms and new companies are started, things are invented – all just by being in a manufacturing supply chain.

Whenever I try to discuss anything like this with women their eyes glaze over. They seem to be unable to imagine why not making stuff could be bad for us. Ditto on immigration. My 40yo nurse sister claims that anyone who wants to come to this country “should be able to come here, that’s what America’s all about”.

My point? Most women are economically retarded, and hence politically biased in favor of emotions and ideology. An economist named Bryan Caplan, from GMU I think studied gender differences wrt understanding of basic economics. The results were terrifying – the average adult woman has the economic sophistication of a male child. And even worse? Their understanding of economics worsens as they become more educated. Women with graduate degrees demonstrated even worse economic competence.

My niece recently graduated a social justice factory and she majored in spanish, with a minor in polisci. She took lots of feminist and trans courses and is an activist of sorts. She’s gone lesbian for a while too, it’s really pretty intense. At her graduation we are talking about what she learned, and somehow or the other economics came up and I said something, stating that she must have studied this in her economics classes, and she stopped me. She never took a single economics class.

This apparently is common in the humanities, it’s simply not a requirement. I simply cannot understand why any social scientist would not have to take macro, micro, money and banking and perhaps one more electives on trade or monetary theory or something. It is unimaginable to me how someone can believe they understand the world but not understand the basics of economics.

Do it, I dare you. Talk about banking and securities markets with a woman. See how stupid most of them are on these subjects. It’s all fucking magic to them, it’s so pathetic. Yet they are sure as shit about their political superiority. Fucking arrogant twats, many of them just are so full of themselves. I live in the thick of country, crunchy style SJWs everywhere I look and their sickening smugness is really just too much to bear at times, women being the worst offenders by far.

It’s funny, I wasn’t sexist for most of my life. I never really looked at women critically – Blue Pilling to the max – but now that I do? Man, so many of them are pathetic. Lost. Ignorant. Naive. Delusional. And one is just as good as another.

Of course there are exceptional women who can lead and manage etc, but they are the rare exception. Women need to just accept this simple truth. You have equal access, it’s just that men keep kicking your asses. Too fucking bad, stop whining.

Or let me put it another way. Women get to have the vast powers of attracting men and having babies. That’s a biological power imbalance from the get-go, so why can’t men have some areas where they dominate and have power? Why must male power be stripped but female power and prerogatives are never examined or even mentioned?

“My point is why give a fuck about the mental on goings of some bitch you ain’t fucking on the regular?

Because all women are like that.

Who gives a fuck about women crying foul?”

Because it translates into understanding how women act at home. My daughter sure cried foul when we (group of six) got kicked out of the Thanksgiving Day NFL football game last Thursday after being in a fight with other patrons. I had to manage her crying foul. And instruct her boyfriend on how to not use logic and just “be with her” while she was in tantrum mode. (our group of six wasn’t at fault but we still got kicked out in the third quarter). And I was able to trump my wife’s expectations of my son who (a little too skillfully fought back when some guy attacked him). I was able to just let him be a guy without judging his toxic normal, non-toxic masculinity in action, whereas my wife would want him to suppress his masculinity when inappropriately being provoked. And I wouldn’t accept my wife crying foul. Because I had my red pill lenses on.

I understand your perspective Ton. Your perspective is of being a Natural. Your life experiences don’t need more learning for your strategy with women. But that is not to say that learned Mastery with women is not worthwhile. Unless you want to subscribe to the feminine social convention that it is not genuine and authentic to learn red pill and game. That it’s not fair to acquire Mastery with women that way.

“They’re women, childern who’ve reached the age of concent. Do you over think the temper tantrum of toddlers?”

You actually do think out the temper tantrum of toddlers or three or five year olds if it doesn’t come naturally to you by instincts. It’s called re-direction. The three to five year old hits and kicks his sister. So you redirect his proto-masculine tendencies and you you take him out in the yard and have him hit a baseball or kick a soccer ball. If you didn’t know that naturally as an instinctual parent and learned it from someone else, is the redirection through learned fatherhood any less genuine?

Starting to think the man o sphere should rename itself to the obsessed with bitches sphere.

Out of the mouths of Naturals….

Some of us aren’t obsessed so much as desirous of gaining Mastery over those bitches. And be in charge of ourselves without being obsessed. Being free of constraint.

You do understand why the Manosphere was invented, right? To have guys that weren’t naturals or have not had your experience with women or in the military actually have a resource to go to in order to observe the proper state of what masculinity should look like. Right? I’ve learned re-learned a shit-ton in three years via the manosphere on how to be nearly a natural patriarch and deal with my bitch.

But then…there were the inappropriate pictures left on my desk. The guy miming a sex act when my back was turned.

This woman worked in Wall Street, a high stress sales environment if there ever was one, and expected men to fully restrain their own behavior? Her expectations are the problem. You wouldn’t expect oil-well workers to restrain themselves… similarly stressful situation.

What’s creepy is that in spite of years in a professional field that’s been the domain of men she’s just now remembering this fact. Would it have been less creepy if he’d kissed only his age-appropriate women on his leadership team?

The feminine only seems to recall facts when their re-interpretation is situationally useful.

There’s a reason HR departments are largely staffed by women, because they want to be positioned in a way that they can execute policy. HR departments no longer exist to serve the company with regards to employees, rather they exist in order to protect that company from lawsuits and enforce feminine-primary conditions in the workplace.

My company is mostly ~2000 male white and asian engineers and scientists (many of them older, past 50). HR department is mostly black women. The candidates they send to the management for hiring at one point were so far off the mark that the managers essentially just started going around HR. That may still be the case, I’m not sure. HR is a worthless department that only exists to harm people currently working there, and impose political correctness on the new hires.

I recently left the board of a non-profit that I LOVE. I had been on it for years (and years). At nearly every meeting I asked how much we were spending on our investment managers, in comparison to the return we were getting. …And then, last spring, before I could bring up the topic, one of the men did;

*sigh*….standard re-framing… she convinced herself its because she’s a woman and other people are just not part of her collective. It couldn’t have been that years had passed and the financial situation had changed… It couldn’t have been that her harping on it finally woke someone up. It couldn’t have been that her persuasion skills sucked. It couldn’t have been anything other than her vagina and everyone else’s lack of cooperation with her reality.

If it had been a woman who’d made the same suggestion would we be hearing about this? Shit like this happens all the time in the workplace. One reason The 48 Laws of Power resonated with men so well is because it was relatable to exactly this kind of situation. Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit for it yourself. Sallie sees this as sexism because it happened to be a guy who pulled it on her, but would she have quit the non-profit had it been a woman who outplayed her?

Leaving aside male/female, and feelings v. objectivity, there is another way of looking at one’s reaction to this occurrence.

How about guys who want no part of big bureaucratic structures full of beta snakes who play women’s games and steal credit for other men’s work?

Men, and I am one, who feel revulsion at the type of human and the type of actions required to thrive (?) get ahead (?) in such an environment, are best advised to find work or a profession in which they can avoid office politics and beta back-stabbers playing female games.

If sounds like you work in a creative field that requires you to operate in such an environment as the price to pay for working in that field.

Others may choose not to make the compromises/concessions or, as you might see it, adjustments, to win at these games, as they don’t see the upside to spending their lives around such creatures.

Too much binary thinking in this society – in your answer, the particular environment – here the competitive office environment of a (presumed) largish firm – is assumed.

My point is only that it needn’t be. All kinds of real men do and will choose to avoid these increasingly female primary environments completely because they are inherently emasculating.

You are great at the Red Pill stuff. But your grasp of corporate dynamics is tenuous at best.

The reason why majority HR staff are Women, is because 99% of HR issues that they deal with ARE from Women. If you think for a moment any company wants a Male HR staffer dealing with a potential Sexual Harassment report you are smoking something legal in a handful of states.

HR is a lot like QA or Call Center work. No one wants to do it in the trenches. The senior HR people all want to negotiate with the health insurers to get the rate increase from 12% to 11% with a rider for that one employee with inoperable stupid. They want to be wined and dined by the 401k people they don’t want to deal with Sally Sobstory’s latest imagined slight.

I like how the Financial Chic noticed that there were fewer at 30s and fewer still at 40s. What she does not get is that the REASON for these losses in the ranks are due to the drama that worked when these women were in their 20s do not work so well when they are in their 30s and certainly end at 40+. Then at 40 she’s a declared big girl who can take care of herself with the mean men in the team room!

I’ve seen it like 25+ times. We have a hotshot girl who can lead like the best of them. Then boom she turns 30 and can’t bat her eyes like she could at 25. Eeeeck! She has to gasp! work and manage like a human without a couple of perky motivational props to use in meetings. Things get tough for these stars at 30+ and by 32 they decide they want a family or suburban bliss and leave. Meanwhile the mousy girl with glasses becomes a decent manager/leader in her 30s and somehow can still be productive without leaning on her feminine charms. But those are a 1 in 10 vs the star with perky motivators.

Anyway I know this HR Riff post probably plays well to RP guys. But in corporate America we just don’t care. It’s get ‘er done or you are gone. It don’t matter if you are female, black or green. If you meet your numbers within policy you get ahead. If you don’t you are toast. (yes if you are female you can dodge the Reaper a couple of times, but in the end you will be gone too).

I get the angst. I get that RP is all about women centric obvious observation. But at the end of the day if you are a producer and your product has value you will get success. If you play games (even if you are female) you will not last. That is the true lesson from Miss “I notice less at 30s and less at 40s”. What she is saying is in corporate America OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT works. It’s too obvious for her little mind that her female coworkers just were not good enough to make the cut.

It’s less about being a natural, I chronicled my mistakes with women farily well at one point ie listening to blue pill advice regarding my marriage and post divorce recovery. Its more about not giving a shit about creatures who haven’t earnd the right to it and living a full throttled unapologetically masculine life

Like getting booted from the game for fighting. That’s some good stuff right there and will add to your family legend

Unapologetic, unrepeant, unreconstructed masculinity…. or as it now says Freedom, firepower and fuckyeah

A manager I knew needed to get a major project approved and went to the exec meeting with a PowerPoint presentation. I was there and watched him go down in flames. Afterwards I said lets do this right.

I set up short one-on-ones with each exec and got blessings one at a time. Then at the next exec meeting the project was given the go ahead in two minutes.

Something that needs reinforcing is the fact that woman fail or are outperformed by men in traditionally male professions and workspaces not because they are provided the ready made excuse of male chauvinism which supposedly serves as some kind of psychological disincentive to strive or work harder. No, they fail because women are inferior to men in nearly every way that matters. This is a fact of nature, and to back away from this fact is a sign of cowardice, or more often in the current year a sign of the feminine primary brain washing that all men are exposed to from the moment they learn to talk.

This is similar to how Republicans like to DR3 (Dems R The Real Racists) that if only we cut welfare then blacks would no longer be incentivized to fail and magically become just as successful as whites. Now, I’m not saying that incentives don’t matter, what I’m saying is that biology matters far more. Indeed, over the long term if welfare, gender and race quotas, and other protections for ‘oppressed classes lol’ were eliminated then only the strong and intelligent would be able to afford to reproduce, having a eugenic effect on the population in question.

@KFG – Was at a small, intimate weekend conference at a an angel investor’s 40 room manse recently and ended up chatting with a 50yo woman who was opinionated about everything. She’s in the “same” business as me – but fails at it. Her pose as a “consultant” is really a coverup for her failure, but I treat her seriously initially as I know none of this.

She begins to opine on the insurance industry and how the real problem with health care is insurance company profits. I don’t think I’ve mentioned this before, but in addition to working with derivatives traders I also did a lot of work with insurance companies, and understand the financial structure of insurance companies well. I bring up ObamaCare’s approach to controlling underwriting and how it was destined to create unsustainable insurance pools because they would invariably suffer from adverse selection, and how this is causing health care payer losses, and how the taxpayer is making up for them.

She looks at me as though I’m speaking Greek. I try breaking it down for her and give her some sense of the financial structure of insurance products. Nothing. So she starts getting aggravated with me – but I’m Red Pill now so I don’t take the bait. I game her and settle her back down and try again to have a rational discussion with her. I explain how this was all well understood by people who actually know how insurance works pre-ObamaCare, and now that ACA is failing in the way the people like me predicted, it’s about time the left started listening.

She simply could not get engaged in a fact based discussion because to her, insurance is magic. Insurance companies are not supposed to make money. She’s so ignorant, she posited this as an argument: After some flooding that happened in Miami, she commented that the insurers who were most affected still made a profit that year, and how that was “wrong”. I think I didn’t hide my shock at her ignorance well, and went on to explain how reinsurance works and how those losses fit into the expected losses models, even if it was tail risk.

I try explaining how every single insurance product sold is approved by a state insurance commission, or if a group policy is subject to ERISA and how insurance is regulated by states. That the amount of profit insurance companies make on these products is monitored and reported on, as well as the losses.

More dumb stares. Yet she lectures people about insurance and uses her credibility as a business person to bolster her claims. In other words, she’s a stupid, arrogant, loudmouthed cunt. And gets away with it.

I shouldn’t even have to be at the same table with such a ridiculously stupid person. But hey, she’s a woman so i’m supposed to just grin…Women want a seat the table? Then earn it. Learn something. Dig in. Go deep. Business is not a fashion contest, it’s a brains contest. Smartest people often end up winning…But hey, these broads all look good at the office, right?

@Wiseman – Not that wise though, are you? Your race realism suffers from a few defects that you simply ignore due to it aggrandizing your biases. Just so you can’t say someone didn’t tell you that you were wrong…But you could try and be smarter, so listen and learn bunky.

1. The variance within races of humans is greater than the variance between races across IQ and many other measures of human cognition and behavior. If you are actually intelligent this will tell you something about how “different” blacks and Asians etc actually are from white folks. Put another way, according to your “principles” anyone with “bad” biology should be separated from your superior genetics. Not just black folks – but anyone, cuz hey, you are concerned with outcomes, not race, right? There are plenty of biologically defective whites too, why do you want to live with them?

2. Try reading something not published AmRe or some other dipshit, psudo-intellectual bigots and you might actually learn something. Like say Charle’s Murray’s Coming Apart, he wrote a book on IQ that showed the differences across racial and gender and many other lines – you should love him, right? Well this other book shows two facts very clearly:

– The social pathologies affecting the black working class aren’t much different or worse than the social pathologies affecting the white working class. Huh, really? Yeah really, you dumb motherfucker. Murray uses great data and only examines the white working class and it becomes clear as a bell when at the end he adds blacks back into the mix. In fact, the behaviors and outcomes you seem concerned with are not correlated with race, they are mostly correlated with class. And no, dipshit, you can’t just claim all those white folks are Scotch-Irish and had defective genetics too, so don’t get there either.

– That black working class folks up until the ’60s were making great gains in society and had social outcomes not so different from white working folks. They had slightly more criminality, out of wedlock births etc, but only marginally. If blacks are axiomatically genetically inferior to the point where they cannot function effectively in a free society, then how do you explain this data from the early to mid-20th century?

Answer? You, and the rest of the alt right white separatist scumbags (and yeah I’m talking to every last one of you race realists) just ignore these data. You only listen to data that supports your bigotry.

Multi-culturalism is the problem. The U.S. found a way to create a path that all comers could grasp onto culturally, and used to enforce that in positive and negative ways. People who failed were shamed. Homeless people were called bums. Immigrants who couldn’t make it here didn’t have welfare to fall back on so 1/3 of them went home. You learned the “can do” and “self reliant” attitude of Americans early of you didn’t survive. And the entire culture, including all of its institutions supported this “pioneer spirit”, this classless society which deTocqueville marveled over.

That’s the America I’ve seen work. And I’ve seen black folks pick up those ideas and thrive with them. Anyone can. We stopped doing that 50 years ago and today we have a deformed, weakened culture that reinforces all the wrong behaviors. Across all races, gender etc.

Last. This race realism you and many other alt righters have grasped onto will marginalize the entire alt right if you guys don’t get a grip on yourselves. The revolution Trump’s election is a symptom is largely about culture and economics, not race. When you lean on these ideas too hard, you make yourself irrelevant. Most Americans rightly will not make common cause with white supremacists. And hey, if you really are all about the “best’ genetics, we should all be east Asian supremacists, right? i mean white people should be subjugated by east Asians by the same logic, right? They are genetically superior after all…

1. The variance within races of humans is greater than the variance between races across IQ and many other measures of human cognition and behavior.

It’s also true that the variation within sexes of humans is greater than the variance between sexes across IQ and many other measures of human cognition and behavior, if that shows that the mentality of men and woman doesn’t generally vary significantly.

Do get the point? Your statement isn’t relevant to anything. The point is that there are general discrepancies ACROSS RACES. Sure, you can find a white who can outjump a black, but blacks, in general, jump far better than whites and outperform whites at running and jumping. Whites excel at swimming, perhaps because of greater buoyancy.

IQ is another discrepancy. Whites test higher than blacks, ceteris paribus. Notice that I am discussing AMERICAN blacks. Blacks from Africa tend to perform much higher than American blacks in academics and perhaps on IQ tests. So, I can’t assume that this is a racial thing, but may be due to some factors in the American context.

Whites excel at law and business and other social stuff. Likely some of whites’ social and business superiority is because of white skin and its status.

Nice you are getting so many bangs all the same… so wait a sec a 44YO wasn’t all pruny and wrinkled and a 1/10 with zero SM options? Huh… go figure?

On the 6 / 7 dynamic… yeah the 7 was into jealousy plot line mode and her buying temp was up… and her esteem down… sooooo…? why didn’t you try and pull her…? 2 minutes of AMOGing your good looking friend (good natured) then a pinch of isolation with her again then “hey they are really getting along, he is into her, come with me a minute” and move her and run your game… You got too wrapped up in her frame of “liking” your friend…

Really if you have no wing rules worked out, assert yourself… But next time work out in advance and stick to it or ditch these guys…

On the 8 – told you this before… when you get the receipt just TELL HER to write her number on it… it’s an easy smooth move… she will or won’t and you deal with either. If you forgot to do that go back and get a drink and THEN do it. Easy peasy.

But 5 mins later the *counter girl* left the counter to bring me my drink upstairs and serve me with a big smile and EC. Again, it seems like a small thing, and maybe it was nothing but my instincts say that was confirmation I hadn’t misjudged the original IOI.

jeez… Time to act! Carry a pen with you for these quick numbers… easier than phone an not obvious…